But... but wiring isn't mercury!

[asta]

Autism brain secrets revealed by scan

 

Differences in the brain structure of people carrying an "autism gene" may offer clues to how the condition develops, say US scientists.

 

[...]

 

One-third of the population carry the CNTNAP2 gene variant, so it does not guarantee that autism will develop, but just slightly increases the risk.

 

[...]

 

They scanned the brains of 32 children as they performed learning-related tasks - half had autism, and half did not.

 

[...]

 

The researchers also spotted differences in the "wiring" between the frontal lobe and the left and right sides of the brain.

 

The study upon which the story was based:

 

Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Aug 15;68(4):345-51. Epub 2010 Mar 29.

No neural evidence of statistical learning during exposure to artificial languages in children with autism spectrum disorders.

Scott-Van Zeeland AA, McNealy K, Wang AT, Sigman M, Bookheimer SY, Dapretto M.

Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA. Abstract here.

 

Although the presence of this gene (obviously) does not apply to all people on the AS, it confirms what AS people themselves have been saying for years: it's in the wiring, folks - not the food, not the water, not the nurturing, etc.

 

How it got INTO the wiring is up for debate, but you don't "cure" wiring anymore than you "cure" blue eyes. It is a structural change. The body has evolved into this, for whatever reason. The larger (HUGE) question is, why? What benefit to humanity comes from the brain evolving in this manner?

 

Another fascinating study done this year (abstract, unfortunately):

 

Reward processing in autism.

 

The layman's version of it can be found in a popular press article here: Social interactions not rewarding for children with autism. This also confirms statements by people on the spectrum who describe social interactions as "exhausting" and "painful". If you read the article all the way through, they do mention some behavioral adjustments that can be taught, which us old aspies will tell you do work, one way or another (eg: it's nice if they are done systematically and gently by someone who loves you, but if life beats it into you, you'll figure it out also...).

 

 

asta

[Mom0012]

Well, my understanding is that autism is diagnosed based on symptoms/behaviors. There is no bloodtest, etc. that can diagnose autism. So, children that exhibit these behaviors will be labelled with autism.

 

My son has celiac or gluten intolerance as well as many, many allergies. Until we removed gluten at 3 years old, he fit the criteria for being on the autism spectrum. I believe he was completely malnourished and that affected his development and led to the language, behavioral and social issues he had. So, yes, food can make a difference to some children labelled with autism and that's why we keep hearing about it.

 

Still, it's an interesting study.

 

Lisa

Edited November 4, 2010 by LisaTheresa

[Ravin]

The root of the issue is that autism spectrum isn't something with a single root cause. Genetic, epigenetic, developmental, and environmental factors all play a part, and don't play the same parts in every case.

 

Mutations leading to something don't mean that the species is "evolving" that trait; it could be that traits that lead to autism (disadvantageous), in absence of other factors confer advantage (i.e., those with "aspie traits" who tend to be more successful may go on to have kids with those traits, some of whom are more likely to have autism), or it could simply be that with modern therapies and diagnosis and cultural constructs (internet, for example, where you can interact without actually interacting, iykwim), the neutral or negative differences rooting from genetics are resulting in higher survival, diagnosis, and functional living rates than in the past, or are mixing with environmental factors that didn't use to exist to bring out more cases...

 

It's complex, and every study, regardless of focus, helps shed a little more light on the big picture. But you can't point to one study and say "See, this is it!" It's like the blind man thinking the trunk is the whole elephant and thus not knowing it from a snake.

[Peela]

And perhaps those kids whose behaviour changes overnight after having vaccinations, and who were subsequently diagnosed autistic...are just one type of autistic, or just something we also call autistic- and while the symptoms are similar, are really quite different from those who are genetically hard wired autistic from birth. Austism is a set of characteristics that we call "autism". Why can it not have more than one cause?

I do get though that there may not nothing actually "wrong"...it may be an evolutionary step or perhaps an adaptation.

[asta]

The root of the issue is that autism spectrum isn't something with a single root cause. Genetic, epigenetic, developmental, and environmental factors all play a part, and don't play the same parts in every case.

 

Mutations leading to something don't mean that the species is "evolving" that trait; it could be that traits that lead to autism (disadvantageous), in absence of other factors confer advantage (i.e., those with "aspie traits" who tend to be more successful may go on to have kids with those traits, some of whom are more likely to have autism), or it could simply be that with modern therapies and diagnosis and cultural constructs (internet, for example, where you can interact without actually interacting, iykwim), the neutral or negative differences rooting from genetics are resulting in higher survival, diagnosis, and functional living rates than in the past, or are mixing with environmental factors that didn't use to exist to bring out more cases...

 

It's complex, and every study, regardless of focus, helps shed a little more light on the big picture. But you can't point to one study and say "See, this is it!" It's like the blind man thinking the trunk is the whole elephant and thus not knowing it from a snake.

 

I don't believe this is it so much as I believe this shows so much of the crap (IMO) out there isn't it. As LisaTheresa said (paraphrasing here), diagnoses come from grouping behaviors beneath an umbrella that society has labelled "autism spectrum disorders". Even though those behaviors range from Bill Gates to completely non-communicative, non-"functional" individuals (eg: cannot feed, bathe, clothe, etc. themselves).

 

I agree with Ravin that there isn't a single, root cause (otherwise, how could you possibly have such an incredible range of behaviors??). I find it interesting that researchers have found this one gene present in ASD and non ASD presenting individuals. WHY is it activated in some and not others? Is it like the MS theory - a ticking time bomb waiting for that one stressful event (or whatever) to set it off? Lots of questions in my head.

 

a

[jplain]

I find it interesting that researchers have found this one gene present in ASD and non ASD presenting individuals.

This is true of many genetic disorders. The genetic concept is called penetrance, defined as the percentage of individuals with a given genotype who actually possess/display/develop the trait.

 

WHY is it activated in some and not others?

Of course no one knows the specifics yet for this particular gene. But in case you're interested, here's a link to a review article that discusses some possibilities: Same Genetic Mutation, Different Disease Phenotype. It leaves out some causes of variable phenotype, such as sex limitation, genomic imprinting, and X chromosome inactivation, but it is a good overview of the concepts of penetrance and expressivity.

[jplain]

I don't believe this is it so much as I believe this shows so much of the crap (IMO) out there isn't it.

I can't understand why you believe this. It is illogical. :confused:

Characterization of one contributor does not and cannot show that other hypotheses are crap.

 

I do agree with you that if neuronal communication is fundamentally and structurally different, it isn't appropriate to talk about cure. Prevention, maybe, if and only if one believes that's desirable. Then again, it appears to be a big umbrella. Cure may be an appropriate concept for some conditions under the umbrella.

[mommaduck]

I'm guessing that this is stemming off of the Vax thread.

 

1. Austism is not the only, let alone the largest, reaction issue.

 

2. More than one reaction to vaccinations has been noted that there is "probable" genetic connection. No one knows what the connection is, because that is the furthest that the medical society is willing to go with it. They refuse to try to find that connection or to create a test for it. Nope, much easier and cheaper to tell everyone to shoot their child up and if you kid is the one to regress, to be physically or mental damaged, or even die from it...well, tough luck, guess that's your luck of the draw :glare: The best dr's are willing to give us are denial, tell you to continue russian roulette with your other kids and hope nothing happens, or (some very wonderful and honest physicians) tell you that you should delay or discontinue vaccinations for the sibling group at least until their teens or twenties.

 

3. Autism, as Peela stated, is not a cut and dried diagnosis of cause. It's a diagnosis of general symptoms that can be caused by a variety of causes.

[asta]

I'm guessing that this is stemming off of the Vax thread.

 

 

No, I did this one first.

[cjbeach]

I know NOW to ask the percentage. I once was very excited by the notion of genetic involvement until I saw the percentage. Then I was very disappointed.

I have a vax injured kid but I'm looking for somone to point to a gene, point to deletion, point to SOMETHING...preferably something with a treatment pathway.

So.frustrating.

I can't get answers soon enough, because as my son gets older his "issues" are standing out more. At 3 I believed his dx would improve, and he has, but at almost 10 I'm not seeing the ability to be a functional adult here....:confused: